Legal ownership is required for wealth-tax inclusion; mere possession under an unregistered transfer is insufficient.

For wealth-tax purposes, an immovable flat is includible in net wealth only when legal ownership has passed to the assessee. Payment of consideration and delivery of possession, without execution and registration of a sale deed, create no taxable ownership interest. On that footing, exclusion of the flat from the assessee's net wealth was correct, and the Commissioner could not validly invoke revision on the ground that the Wealth-tax Officer had erred. Mere possession or an inchoate right does not satisfy the ownership requirement under the Wealth-tax Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner was justified in invoking revision under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on the footing that the Wealth-tax Officer had erred in not valuing the assessee's interest in the flat as an asset owned by her for wealth-tax purposes.

Analysis: The assessee had paid consideration for a share in the flat and was put in possession, but title in the immovable property had not passed by execution and registration of a sale deed. Under the scheme of the Wealth-tax Act, liability arises from ownership of the asset, and mere possession or an inchoate right unaccompanied by legal ownership does not make the property part of the assessee's net wealth. Since ownership had not legally vested in the assessee, the Wealth-tax Officer committed no error in excluding the flat's value from the net wealth, and the revisional jurisdiction under section 25(2) could not be validly invoked.

Conclusion: The revision under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was unwarranted and the assessee's contention succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: For wealth-tax purposes, an immovable property is includible in the assessee's net wealth only when legal ownership has passed to the assessee, and possession without a registered transfer deed is insufficient to attract taxation as owner.

---